Libyan War : Political and strategic aspects

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 03 Apr 2011 21:11

Yesterday Al Jazeera aired that Egyptian and US special forces are providing training to the most experienced officers in rebel ranks. All being done discreetly. Qatar is playing a major role - This I can confirm from other sources.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 04 Apr 2011 16:20

Q's sons are desirous of overseeing a transition but the rebels are not having any of it: Report.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 04 Apr 2011 18:18

^ Well, that was fast! it was only yesterday that I said that Q's son would take over in a government that would wear the facade of a democracy.

And now this proposal has come.

Western countries do not realize that this is the best option they have of a face saving exit. 'Rebels' are of course too stupid and too commited to understand anything.

----------

Libya appears heading for a defacto (not de jure) partition, now that the 'rebels' have access to heavy weaponry. These weapons can pin down Qaddafi's forces on the open desert, making it difficult to move between cities to assault 'rebel' positions. In other words, they now have a stalemate in offensive capability. Unless Q can incite disunity in 'rebel' ranks (not a difficult task by itself), this military stalemate will be followed by a political stalemate. That is when Q's clock will start ticking. Right now it is the west's and 'rebel' clock that is ticking.

What is amazing is that Qaddafi held the initiative longer than the neo-imperialists in this battle. But just like in 1857, we held the initiative for a longer period than the British, it did not matter in the end because the British went on a genocidal spree in the UP/hindi belt.

Q needs to start playing on the 'rebels' exhaustion.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Apr 2011 18:20

I saw a photo today presumably from benghazi area of a bunch of civilian students sitting in a open field being instructed in the use of a twin-HMG by army deserters who joined the rebels.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 04 Apr 2011 18:54

I think we overestimate the support for Gaddafi from the local population. His support is drawn from only a few small clans. Even in Tripoli the reporters have noted that 90%+ of the population is against him. Sirte is a exception. Due to the oil payoff's which should have belonged to East Libya these people understand that their economic prosperity is doomed without Gaddafi. But it is only a small town of 100,000 or so. Even here reporters have noted that large chunks do not support Gaddafi.

Gaddafi is now effectively cut off from his oil money. He can get no new weaponry. His heavy equipment is useless. This is an extremely unstable situation for him. The coalition has dragged him down to the level of the rebels and turned this into a street fight. Commitment and experience will win this conflict. The situation is so unstable that if Sirte falls Tripoli is completely exposed to the rebels. This is not what stable stand offs are made off.

Keep in mind the South West of Libya, with more oil reserves, is even more hostile towards Gaddafi. There is nothing between these people in the Zintan area from marching on Tripoli. Undoubtedly special forces types are preparing them for such a flanking move. Even a couple of thousand tribesmen will shatter Gaddafi's deployment. And he has to hold Misurata, a city of 300,000 who are well armed and are baying for his blood.

habal · Post by **habal** » 04 Apr 2011 20:42

South West of Libya is Fezan and HQ'ed at Sabha is very much pro-Qaddafi. Who is spreading these rumors that the Fezan are not with Qaddafi ? If there is nothing between them & Tripoli they would have marched to Tripoli long ago no ? As per all reports the Benghazian rebels i.e the Obeidat & Harabi are extremely anti-Fezan because they are against black Libyans. First thing they did after taking over Benghazi was to hang/kill all the Fezzan blacks who lived there because they were perceived as pro-Qaddafi. Only Zawayya tribe of North East is rebelling against Qaddafi.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Apr 2011 21:05

Looks like Libya was the wrong country to back the reforms in. Or the reforms should have been ushered in a more gentler way. Western Europe's eagerness to bring about regime change(getting even with Gaddafi) in Libya has unleashed a number of ill forces.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 04 Apr 2011 22:09

^^^ amongst the ill forces, not the least of which is the the generous and liberal interpretation of a no-fly zone to include aerial bombing, open intelligence penetration, supply of heavy weaponry to rebels, etc etc. in the long term, this might be good. on the one hand, if Libya succeeds in remaining a state, without partition, even as a weak one, it will be a major slap on the face for all imperialist wannabes. and secondly, the entire world just witnessed how UN resolutions and official language can be interpreted as and how the Western nations want to. in the future, there will be much more circumspection in all quarters before jumping into any Western backed operation based on the "assurances" and "trust" of the West. everybody can now see that Libya intervention is a brazen form of neoimperialism. this is good in the long term.

at a time when the West needs to be more careful and thoughtful to keep their power from diluting even more, they have committed a great blunder in Libya. i feel like this is one of those underestimated moments in history which will later play a very significant role.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 05 Apr 2011 06:12

Everyone in the UN including the Arab league wants Gaddafi gone. But they could not bring themselves to say it openly. When that resolution was drawn every country including India knew exactly how it would be implemented to hasten regime change. All are complicit.

Gaddafi was a major source of funding for terrorist organizations around the world. Just to remind people 3 of the Lockerbie passengers were Indian nationals. Let remember that the next time we get all teary eyed about the 'mad dog'.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 05 Apr 2011 06:20

devesh wrote:^^^ amongst the ill forces, not the least of which is the the generous and liberal interpretation of a no-fly zone to include aerial bombing, open intelligence penetration, supply of heavy weaponry to rebels, etc etc. in the long term, this might be good. on the one hand, if Libya succeeds in remaining a state, without partition, even as a weak one, it will be a major slap on the face for all imperialist wannabes. and secondly, the entire world just witnessed how UN resolutions and official language can be interpreted as and how the Western nations want to. in the future, there will be much more circumspection in all quarters before jumping into any Western backed operation based on the "assurances" and "trust" of the West. everybody can now see that Libya intervention is a brazen form of neoimperialism. this is good in the long term.

As if this was the motivation for anyone currently. You speak as if current nations are sheep to go baahhh when the Western shepherds wave their staff? And these sheep will now become enlightened? I think everyone relevant knew the current game going into this, there is no epiphany to be had.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 05 Apr 2011 07:39

Theo_Fidel wrote:Everyone in the UN including the Arab league wants Gaddafi gone. But they could not bring themselves to say it openly. When that resolution was drawn every country including India knew exactly how it would be implemented to hasten regime change. All are complicit.

Gaddafi was a major source of funding for terrorist organizations around the world. Just to remind people 3 of the Lockerbie passengers were Indian nationals. Let remember that the next time we get all teary eyed about the 'mad dog'.

Lockerbie was in all likelihood a false flag operation. See http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/08/m ... rs-to.html for a detailed compilation of evidence.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 05 Apr 2011 08:45

If only blogposts dripping with insinuations made something "in all likelihood" (then we'd have 1 million different conflicting likelihoods)

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 05 Apr 2011 09:06

UBanerjee wrote:If only blogposts dripping with insinuations made something "in all likelihood" (then we'd have 1 million different conflicting likelihoods)

It is a compilation of credible references, with links.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 05 Apr 2011 09:07

^Not necessarily. Lockerbie could have been Q getting back to the Americans for killing his daughter in the air bombing of Tripoli.

----------
Theo,

1. Tough luck to those 3 Indians. Collateral damage. They were not the intended targets.

2. Q may have funded terrorism around the world, but none of it was directed against India.

3. You mentioning that Q funded terrorism around the world, along with mentioning that 3 Indians died, amounts to suggesting that Q funded terror was directed against India as well, whereas it was clearly not so.

And finally, your suggesting that India is complicit in the western efforts to remove Qaddafi is based on the assumption that India actually has a well though out, coherent policy in this regard, when all evidence suggests that India is muddling through this situation and clutching at straws.

There has been an institutional meltdown in Indian policy circles since PVNR left. BJP was pathetic (witness their cluelessness when they did not recognize the hostility of the P army - even as ABV was taking a bus ride, they were infiltrating troops into India). MMS govt has been sclerotic.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 05 Apr 2011 09:08

UBanerjee wrote:If only blogposts dripping with insinuations made something "in all likelihood" (then we'd have 1 million different conflicting likelihoods)

Then you would have GOI policy on Libya, in all likelihood.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 05 Apr 2011 09:18

Pan Am 103 Why Did They Die? - http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,975399,00.html

Another compilation: LOCKERBIE IS ABOUT HEROIN - http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2010/08/l ... eroin.html

Also: Flight from the truth - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/2 ... features11

The Lockerbie trial was meant to end the saga of Pan Am flight 103. But it didn't take into account the wads of US dollars, or the heroin, or the Hizbullah T-shirt found in the wreckage. As the man convicted of the bombing prepares to appeal, John Ashton and Ian Ferguson argue that there has been a top-level cover-up

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 05 Apr 2011 09:36

UBanerjee wrote:
devesh wrote:^^^ amongst the ill forces, not the least of which is the the generous and liberal interpretation of a no-fly zone to include aerial bombing, open intelligence penetration, supply of heavy weaponry to rebels, etc etc. in the long term, this might be good. on the one hand, if Libya succeeds in remaining a state, without partition, even as a weak one, it will be a major slap on the face for all imperialist wannabes. and secondly, the entire world just witnessed how UN resolutions and official language can be interpreted as and how the Western nations want to. in the future, there will be much more circumspection in all quarters before jumping into any Western backed operation based on the "assurances" and "trust" of the West. everybody can now see that Libya intervention is a brazen form of neoimperialism. this is good in the long term.
As if this was the motivation for anyone currently. You speak as if current nations are sheep to go baahhh when the Western shepherds wave their staff? And these sheep will now become enlightened? I think everyone relevant knew the current game going into this, there is no epiphany to be had.

who is this "everybody" that knows the current game? i'd say even Obama didn't fully understand the game. to an extent, it's possible Sarkozy is the only Western leader who understands the game best. and he skillfully roped in Britain and US. but even for these ppl, it now increasingly seems like there will have to actual ground troops present to finalize the situation. this is politically untenable. Obama's presidency will go down in flames if he takes this path. he will be dutifully following the paths of Wilson, Truman, and Johnson.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 05 Apr 2011 09:53

Even Sarkozy did not understand what he was getting into. He is daft if he thinks he can survive politically with the Quixotic venture. He and Obama will face elections soon. Obama has announced his candidature for 2012 elections today. Hence, he will now be forced to defend his policies. The longer the Libya war continues, the more difficult it will become for him.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 05 Apr 2011 11:05

looks like qadhafi needs to hold close to towns, keep chai biskoot talks going for months and watch the eager beaver west squirm, then offer them a face saving exit from the mess...and keep the oil towns.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 05 Apr 2011 18:40

France, Qatar, and now Italy has recognized the "eastern" Libyan government as the only valid Libyan one. A Greek tanker apparently on way to take the first delivery of oil. Gaddafi may hold out, but his is a dying regime.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 06 Apr 2011 00:38

I suppose this means that Libya has been defacto partitioned. As Sudan was dejure partitioned. Amazing that only those countries are getting partitioned where developing giants India and China are getting involved in resource extraction in a big way.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 06 Apr 2011 01:08

brihaspati wrote:France, Qatar, and now Italy has recognized the "eastern" Libyan government as the only valid Libyan one. A Greek tanker apparently on way to take the first delivery of oil. Gaddafi may hold out, but his is a dying regime.

Another Kosovo coming up.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Apr 2011 01:10

Bji, Do you recall Nigerian partition and breakaway Biafra?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Apr 2011 01:25

ramana ji,
yes. But on the Libyan desert, we do not have the orthodox X vs Islam contest. No sectarian fight within the branch of the Islamic. Religion wise - both Q and opposition comes from same affiliation.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 06 Apr 2011 07:54

brihaspati wrote:ramana ji,
Religion wise - both Q and opposition comes from same affiliation.

The opposition (which includes the Gulf states participating in the bombing and arming the rebels) are a lot more Islamist than Q.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 07 Apr 2011 09:21

^ Actually, the difference in religious contours of the two cases is misleading. What is relevant is how one side is deeply connected to the international interests (energy and financial). In case of Nigeria, of the two tribes that won one was Xtian and the other Islamic. In the case Libya also, one side ('rebel') is deeply connected with the international system (in this case both west and Islamic world support them).

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Apr 2011 16:07

Pranav wrote:
brihaspati wrote:ramana ji,
Religion wise - both Q and opposition comes from same affiliation.
The opposition (which includes the Gulf states participating in the bombing and arming the rebels) are a lot more Islamist than Q.

Depends on the perspective! As I said previously - carrying blonde female bodyguards around is not un-Islamic by historical precedence. In fact there is a way out to get sanction for every type of physical pleasures you want. But Q sided with Palestinian self-determination and "Kashmiri" self-determination, derided "Saud" for their decadence and deviation from the pure path and being a poodle of the west, and is alleged to have sent around money to a wide variety of Islamist extremists. This performance is matched only by the west - which is however mostly X-tian. So in real terms, from among the muslim world, Q stands out as a shining light of modern Jihad - which according to several Hadiths is better qualifier for a Muslim than anything else.

jimmyray · Post by **jimmyray** » 07 Apr 2011 16:08

Several rebels killed in latest NATO airstrike near Ajdabiya and Brega today (BBC says 13 killed). Some rebel tanks and a bus carrying rebels were also hit by the 'friendly' fire. This is the second time in last one week that NATO has mistakenly hit rebels

Libyan rebels say NATO airstrikes hit their forces

AJDABIYA, Libya (AP) -- Rebel fighters are claiming that NATO airstrikes hit their forces on the front lines and touched off a retreat from the outskirts of the oil port of Brega.
Several militiamen fleeing back toward rebel-held Ajdabiya in eastern Libya say they saw several of their tanks destroyed by apparent NATO bombing runs. Dozens of vehicles were seen racing from the front lines Thursday, including ambulances and rebel vehicles outfitted with weapons.

The retreat comes after rebel leaders complained that NATO airstrikes were carried out too slowly to disrupt forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi.
A NATO official in Brussels says the alliance will look into the rebel claims but he had no immediate information.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Apr 2011 16:40

brihaspati wrote:
Pranav wrote: The opposition (which includes the Gulf states participating in the bombing and arming the rebels) are a lot more Islamist than Q.
Depends on the perspective! As I said previously - carrying blonde female bodyguards around is not un-Islamic by historical precedence. In fact there is a way out to get sanction for every type of physical pleasures you want. But Q sided with Palestinian self-determination and "Kashmiri" self-determination, derided "Saud" for their decadence and deviation from the pure path and being a poodle of the west, and is alleged to have sent around money to a wide variety of Islamist extremists. This performance is matched only by the west - which is however mostly X-tian. So in real terms, from among the muslim world, Q stands out as a shining light of modern Jihad - which according to several Hadiths is better qualifier for a Muslim than anything else.

As far as Kashmir is concerned the only recent event seems to be have been a survey sponsored by his son which revealed that basically nobody in J&K wanted to join the Paks.

As regards Saudis, his criticism was about poodle-hood, nothing religious.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Apr 2011 16:46

Libya And Obama’s Defense Of The ‘Rebel Uprising’

By Prof James Petras

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles. His latest book is War Crimes in Gaza and the Zionist Fifth Column in America.

Global Research, April 4, 2011

Over the past two weeks Libya has been subjected to the most brutal imperial air, sea and land assault in its modern history. Thousands of bombs and missiles, launched from American and European submarines, warships and fighter planes, are destroying Libyan military bases, airports, roads, ports, oil depots, artillery emplacements, tanks, armored carriers, planes and troop concentrations. Dozens of CIA and SAS special forces have been training, advising and mapping targets for the so-called Libyan ‘rebels’ engaged in a civil war against the Gaddafi government, its armed forces, popular militias and civilian supporters (NY Times 3/30/11).

Despite this massive military support and their imperial ‘allies’ total control of Libya’s sky and coastline, the ‘rebels’ have proven incapable of mobilizing village or town support and are in retreat after being confronted by the Libyan government’s highly motivated troops and village militias (Al Jazeera 3/30/11).

One of the most flimsy excuse for this inglorious rebel retreat offered by the Cameron-Obama-Sarkozy ‘coalition’, echoed by the mass media, is that their Libyan ‘clients’ are “outgunned” (Financial Times, 3/29/11). Obviously Obama and company don’t count the scores of jets, dozens of warships and submarines, the hundreds of daily attacks and the thousands of bombs dropped on the Libyan government since the start of Western imperial intervention. Direct military intervention of 20 major and minor foreign military powers, savaging the sovereign Libyan state, as well as scores of political accomplices in the United Nations do not contribute to any military advantage for the imperial clients – according to the daily pro-rebel propaganda.

The Los Angeles Times (March 31, 2011), however described how “…many rebels in gun-mounted trucks turned and fled…even though their heavy machine guns and antiaircraft guns seemed a match for any similar government vehicle.” Indeed, no ‘rebel’ force in recent history has received such sustained military support from so many imperial powers in their confrontation with an established regime. Nevertheless, the ‘rebel’ forces on the front lines are in full retreat, fleeing in disarray and thoroughly disgusted with their ‘rebel’ generals and ministers back in Benghazi. Meanwhile the ‘rebel’ leaders, in elegant suits and tailored uniforms, answer the ‘call to battle’ by attending ‘summits’ in London where ‘liberation strategy’ consists of their appeal before the mass media for imperial ground troops (The Independent (London)) (3/31/11).

Morale among the frontline ‘rebels’ is low: According to credible reports from the battlefront at Ajdabiya, “Rebels …complained that their erstwhile commanders were nowhere to be found. They griped about comrades who fled to the relative safety of Benghazi…(they complained that) forces in Benghazi monopolized 400 donated field radios and 400 more…satellite phones intended for the battlefield…(mostly) rebels say commanders rarely visit the battlefield and exercise little authority because many fighters do not trust them“(Los Angeles Times, 3/31/2011). Apparently ‘Twitters’ don’t work on the battlefield.

The decisive issues in a the civil war are not weapons, training or leadership, although certainly these factors are important: The basic difference between the military capability of the pro-government Libyan forces and the Libyan ‘rebels’, backed by both Western imperialists and ‘progressives,’ lies in their motivation, values and material advances. Western imperialist intervention has heightened national consciousness among the Libyan people, who now view their confrontation with the anti-Gaddafi ‘rebels’ as a fight to defend their homeland from foreign air and sea power and puppet land troops – a powerful incentive for any people or army. The opposite is true for the ‘rebels’, whose leaders have surrendered their national identity and depend entirely on imperialist military intervention to put them in power. What rank and file ‘rebel’ fighters are going to risk their lives, fighting their own compatriots, just to place their country under an imperialist or neo-colonial rule?

Finally Western journalists’ accounts are coming to light of village and town pro-government militias repelling these ‘rebels’ and even how “a busload of (Libyan) women suddenly emerged (from one village)…and began cheering as though they supported the rebels…” drawing the Western-backed rebels into a deadly ambush set by their pro-government husbands and neighbors (Globe and Mail, 3/28/11 and McClatchy News Service, 3/29/11).

The ‘rebels’, who enter their villages, are seen as invaders, breaking doors, blowing up homes and arresting and accusing local leaders of being ‘fifth columnists’ for Gaddafi. The threat of military ‘rebel’ occupation, the arrest and abuse of local authorities and the disruption of highly valued family, clan and local community relations have motivated local Libyan militias and fighters to attack the Western-backed ‘rebels’. The ‘rebels’ are regarded as ‘outsiders’ in terms of regional and clan allegiances; by trampling on local mores, the ‘rebels’ now find themselves in ‘hostile’ territory. What ‘rebel’ fighter would be willing to die defending hostile terrain? Such ‘rebels’ have only to call on foreign air-power to ‘liberate’ the pro-government village for them.

The Western media, unable to grasp these material advances by the pro-government forces, attribute popular backing of Gaddafi to ‘coercion’ or ‘co-optation’, relying on ‘rebel’ claims that ‘everybody is secretly opposed to the regime’. There is another material reality, which is conveniently ignored: The Gaddafi regime has effectively used the country’s oil wealth to build a vast network of public schools, hospitals and clinics. Libyans have the highest per capita income in Africa at $14,900 per annum (Financial Times, 4/2/11).

Tens of thousands of low-income Libyan students have received scholarships to study at home and overseas. The urban infrastructure has been modernized, agriculture is subsidized and small-scale producers and manufacturers receive government credit. Gaddafi has overseen these effective programs, in addition to enriching his own clan/family. On the other hand, the Libyan rebels and their imperial mentors have targeted the entire civilian economy, bombed Libyan cities, cut trade and commercial networks, blocked the delivery of subsidized food and welfare to the poor, caused the suspension of schools and forced hundreds of thousands of foreign professionals, teachers, doctors and skilled contract workers to flee.

Libyans, who might otherwise resent Gaddafi’s long autocratic tenure in office, are now faced with the choice between supporting an advanced, functioning welfare state or a foreign-directed military conquest. Many have chosen, quite rationally, to stand with the regime.

The debacle of the imperial-backed ‘rebel’ forces, despite their immense technical-military advantage, is due to the quisling leadership, their role as ‘internal colonialists’ invading local communities and above all their wanton destruction of a social-welfare system which has benefited millions of ordinary Libyans for two generations. The failure of the ‘rebels’ to advance, despite the massive support of imperial air and sea power, means that the US-France-Britain ‘coalition’ will have to escalate its intervention beyond sending special forces, advisers and CIA assassination teams. Given Obama-Clinton’s stated objective of ‘regime change’, there will be no choice but to introduce imperialist troops, send large-scale shipments of armored carriers and tanks, and increase the use of the highly destructive depleted uranium munitions.

No doubt Obama, the most public face of ‘humanitarian armed intervention’ in Africa, will recite bigger and more grotesque lies, as Libyan villagers and townspeople fall victims to his imperial juggernaut. Washington’s ‘first black Chief Executive’ will earn history’s infamy as the US President responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of black Libyans and mass expulsion of millions of sub-Saharan African workers employed under the current regime (Globe and Mail 3/28/11).

No doubt, Anglo-American progressives and leftists will continue to debate (in ‘civilized tones’) the pros and cons of this ‘intervention’, following in the footsteps of their predecessors, the French Socialists and US New Dealers from the 1930′s, who once debated the pros and cons of supporting Republican Spain… While Hitler and Mussolini bombed the republic on behalf of the ‘rebel’ fascist forces under General Franco who upheld the Falangist banner of ‘Family, Church and Civilization’ – a fascist prototype for Obama’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ on behalf of his ‘rebels’.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=24142

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Apr 2011 16:49

abhischekcc wrote:^ Actually, the difference in religious contours of the two cases is misleading. What is relevant is how one side is deeply connected to the international interests (energy and financial). In case of Nigeria, of the two tribes that won one was Xtian and the other Islamic. In the case Libya also, one side ('rebel') is deeply connected with the international system (in this case both west and Islamic world support them).

The point of exchange between ramana ji and me was actually based on a slightly different aspect. The consistent pattern that emerges from the X-tian-western approach to partition is that it should preferably be based on religious sectarianism. In fact, west has always sharpened such sectarian divides as much as possible as part of their imperialist policy whenever they feel that the undivided country will be too strong as an identity to be manipulated.

In the case of Libya, no such religious sectarian divide exists that can be used. Note that ethnic or tribal identity separations are less useful for external imperialist control - hence the preference for religious divide. Q knows too much, and has money stacked around in flow-networks in which west too has a finger in the pie. I would not be surprised, if it turns out at some point in the distant future, that Q was originally a western intel asset who became disposable because the west needed to use his stashed money in western networks without having to pay it back.

There is no religious sectarian potential here.

Pranav ji - he clearly made some public statements about KV. Q's speech about poodle-hood was given in a subtle religious message that would be immediately obvious to ME Islamists, but not to many of us. It was not meant for Qufr and the target audience would find what he conveyed.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Apr 2011 16:58

B ji, what is clear is that as far as dictators go Gaddhafi is among the more benevolent, and the rebels have rather limited support. You can't play the Islam card against Gaddhafi when the rebels are rife with Islamists and the nations bombing are also more Islamist than Gaddhafi.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Apr 2011 17:21

Pranav wrote:B ji, what is clear is that as far as dictators go Gaddhafi is among the more benevolent, and the rebels have rather limited support. You can't play the Islam card against Gaddhafi when the rebels are rife with Islamists and the nations bombing are also more Islamist than Gaddhafi.

I would not be so sure about the "benevolence" part. However, I am not playing the Islamist card against Q. My point in the discussion with ramana ji was about the western attempt or potential attempts at "partition".

For me his Islamism is no more serious and no less serious than the Islamist call of Sayeed Geelani. As I have written before, he has shown his willingness to play the Islamist card as per convenience. What it gives him is the ability to think of foregoing treaties and commitments with non-Muslims deceptively - as his religion given right. As and when necessary he can and will use religious justification for his steps. Given that Islamist justification of hostile action will always divide or immobilize general Muslim inclinations or actions where it concerns the non-Muslim, [perhaps even from among the glitterati among non-Muslims who grow up to accept that "Muslims are like this onlee - what can they do - it is their religion after all, so we should not find fault with them for their religion given injunctions etc."]. This is where I find him dangeorus, and since he has once spoken in favour of Kashmiri Islamists - for me he has crossed the one-strike limit.

Many others have done so similarly, but those others are still powerful and not in a bind, and so we still have to smile and shake hands with them. Since Q is in a spot, I feel no compunction in kicking him in the groin for what position he took openly on Kashmir. I will have exactly the same attitude for any other country that has acted so in the past, and now pretends bonhomie with us. I would be inclined to act the perfect smiling host for them, but wait for the time when it comes for them to be destroyed.

I hope I made my position clear?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Apr 2011 17:37

brihaspati wrote: I would not be so sure about the "benevolence" part. However, I am not playing the Islamist card against Q. My point in the discussion with ramana ji was about the western attempt or potential attempts at "partition".

For me his Islamism is no more serious and no less serious than the Islamist call of Sayeed Geelani. As I have written before, he has shown his willingness to play the Islamist card as per convenience. What it gives him is the ability to think of foregoing treaties and commitments with non-Muslims deceptively - as his religion given right. As and when necessary he can and will use religious justification for his steps. Given that Islamist justification of hostile action will always divide or immobilize general Muslim inclinations or actions where it concerns the non-Muslim, [perhaps even from among the glitterati among non-Muslims who grow up to accept that "Muslims are like this onlee - what can they do - it is their religion after all, so we should not find fault with them for their religion given injunctions etc."]. This is where I find him dangeorus, and since he has once spoken in favour of Kashmiri Islamists - for me he has crossed the one-strike limit.

Many others have done so similarly, but those others are still powerful and not in a bind, and so we still have to smile and shake hands with them. Since Q is in a spot, I feel no compunction in kicking him in the groin for what position he took openly on Kashmir. I will have exactly the same attitude for any other country that has acted so in the past, and now pretends bonhomie with us. I would be inclined to act the perfect smiling host for them, but wait for the time when it comes for them to be destroyed.

I hope I made my position clear?

Any link for his position on Kashmir? Other than the survey sponsored by his son, which had a somewhat favorable result.

Another thing you should consider is that Gaddhafi remaining in power might actually be beneficial. His anger is primarily against western oil companies, not India. And he will not be able to do anything about Kashmir anyway, assuming that he wants to (which doesn't seem to be the case).

But the key issue as far as I am concerned is that he retains a significant amount of support amongst his people. Libyan Human Development indicators have been quite high.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 07 Apr 2011 17:41

brihaspati wrote: This is where I find him dangeorus, and since he has once spoken in favour of Kashmiri Islamists - for me he has crossed the one-strike limit.

Yes, but think of it this way. If this man survives who is he going to be a pain for ? Have some of those ppl(who would be in pain) not been fomenting trouble in our land through indirect means and through our neighbour?

And you can't deny that in that region the dictators are actually more liberal than if the clergy would be in power.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 07 Apr 2011 21:23

If the people of Libya have come out against the 'rebels' then it is only a matter of time before Q wins 100% of the country back.

Western countries are unlikely to put troops on ground because US is already overstretched, and Iran's intransigence makes it a wild card for which troop provisions have to be made and Putting western troops on ground will expose the lie that this is a revolution.

Also, remember that Obama has played his cards very close to the chest on this one. Q has responded by never attacking Obama personally, and always expressing affection for him - calling him a son. The way to a compromise between Obama and Qaddafi is a possibility, and may even be the face saving way out of this impasse.

In fact, the only people barking at Q are Britain and France (and Hillary C) - all secondary power centers. They have boxed in Obama's options by proclaiming to fight for democracy, support for freedom, etc etc. But Obama has resisted openly committing to their plans.

IOW, if Q makes a compromising gesture, and Obama accepts - all this fighting will come to naught. In fact, Hillary and Sarkozy may even find their political careers at an end. I still say that the best way out of this mess for the west is to accept a pseudo-democracy under a Gaddhafi family member. It will enable both sides to claim victory.

Such a move on Obama's part will win him a bigger fan following in the Islamic and African politics.

Time is running out for the west to get a face saving solution to the Libyan misadventure. They have already lost the battle in military terms.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 07 Apr 2011 21:34

Q in power is good for India, because our primary interest lies in keeping the aggressive forces in the Islamic world engaged with each other. If any single power dominates the Islamic world, it will also initiate war against the non muslims. Right not, the true candidate for such a position is KSA, not Q or Iran. The current imbroglio in the Islamic world should be seen as the House of Saud's big push to consolidate the entire muslim world under its own banner. The push for attack on Iran, protection of pakistan against Indian aggression, attack on Q, Osama bin Laden's efforts to create a stable regime under taliban - all are primed to enhance saudi power.

What this means for India is that any person/entity that can prevent KSA from becoming the new caliphate should be supported whole heartedly. Otherwise, we will see a whole host of problems between the Hindu and muslim communities - funded and abetted by KSA.

Q can never challenge India - never. That is why his words on Kashmir ring hollow. It does not matter what position he takes on Kashmir, he will not be able to affect anything on ground. That is where KSA differs from him, and why it is a more dangerous power than Q.

PS
If India takes a more aggressive posture on pakistan now - it will unravel the developing contours of ME and KSA's grand strategy before the next Jumma raat. (Of course we know better than to nurture false hope)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Apr 2011 21:41

To recast Bjis comments in a different light. Gadda_fi is an alternate model for KSA type jihadists. He doesn't wear a tent. But he does espouse the ideology.

Pranav, we should look at the motivation of conducting the survey and not the results.
The Gadda_fis are alternate power centers for jihadists.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 07 Apr 2011 21:49

And as long as Islamic world has several centers of power, it will remain internally engaged, which is what we should hope for.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Apr 2011 22:06

ramana wrote:To recast Bjis comments in a different light. Gadda_fi is an alternate model for KSA type jihadists. He doesn't wear a tent. But he does espouse the ideology.

Pranav, we should look at the motivation of conducting the survey and not the results.
The Gadda_fis are alternate power centers for jihadists.

Gaddhafi's sons have been doing internships in subjects like "transitioning from dictatorship to democracy". The Gaddhafi family has been aloof from Islamism. They don't even have Sharia law. The depiction of Gaddhafi as an Islamist seems weak and unsupported.

In fact, Gaddhafi's survival will create Takleef for exactly those folks that want to support the Paks against India.